with biology. we spend a huge amount of energy and money putting fertilizer on crops like corn. in fact we spend about 1% of the world's energy just making fertilizer for corn in the u.s. if that corn could take the nigtrogeghtrogen out of the air it like beans do, then we wouldn't have to fertilize corn. another important problem, we don't have enough drugs for diseases. we see these multidrug-resistant microbes popping up in hospitals and it's kind of scary. we need better drugs, i think this is an area where synthetic biology can really help. if you look around this room, nearly everything that we're in contact with is derived from petroleum. the carpet on the floor, the paint on the walls, the ceiling tiles, they all come from petroleum we have the potential to produce all of these products from sugar. so it could open up an entirely

new avenue for agriculture, it could open up an environmentally-friendly way to produce all of these products that we use on a day-to-day basis. >> is that part of what drives you? do you look at the world just differently as a result of knowing how sugar could be substituted for these petroleum-based products? >> i don't know if i look at the world that differently. i have a very good hammer and so i see a lot of nails. and i see that we could use this tool that we have, this capability, to make lives better and so i think it's, it's one of my goals. is to try to make the world a better place. >> by reprogramming cells to produce cleaner, more efficient versions of fuels and other chemicals we've all grown so dependant on, jay keasling has opened the door to a brighter, more sustainable future and that's what puts him on the next lis. i'm dr. sanjay gupta. hope to see you back here next sunday.

a cringe-worthy calendar in washington. the small thinking about big problems continues. welcome to "your money," i'm christine romans, ali velshi is in the snow trying to stay warm. march 1, automatic spending cuts take effect unless there's a deal to avoid them. this he were never supposed to happen. the results of a deal to end a debt ceiling debacle in 2011. next while congress takes a two-week break for easter and passover, funding for the federal government will expire. that means a shut-down if congress doesn't act in time. and april 15th, thanks to the no budget, no pay act, the house and senate must pass a senate or they stop getting paychecks and on may 18th, the current debt ceiling suspension ends. with no deal even the threat of the u.s. defaulting could again result in the downgrade of america's credit rating. the consequences for you could

be dire. your borrowing costs would likely rise along with your taxes. you could expect cuts to the programs and government services you rely on. jon king is cnn's national correspondent. jon, president obama says he wants a big deal on budgets and debt. he won the battle for public opinion. he won a second term while congressional approval continues to be super low. is there something more he could be doing to end the small thinking about big problems that has become the norm in our nation's capital? >> he still wants the grand bargain he's been talking about for several years. this past week he came out and said we need another temporary fix. the term sequester is essentially a fancy word for the president and congress not doing their jobs. you laid it out pretty clearly. the president is late submitting his own budget. so he's part of the problem, too. but he does have the upper hand in the public opinion right now. but republicans are very wary. they think the president just wants more revenue and modest cuts, but he won't do the big structural things to medicare,

to social security that are necessary for any part of grand bargain. we're in the game of chicken. another thing is happening, pollsters say every time we do this, consumer confidence starts to go down and consumer confidence in decline would threaten a fragile recovery. >> the only time you hear the word sequester outside of this crazy budget wonk business, when you sequester a jury, and when you sequester a jury, they're doing work. they're doing something. >> a budget would address a lot of our problems here, the last time congress passed one of those, was april 29, 2009. as chairman of the house budget committee, jim newsle guided six federal budgets through committee and served as the director of the office for managements and budget under president george w. bush. the obvious question for you is why were we able to get budgets

done when you ran things and we can't do that any more. is this stalemate about tax policy and spending cuts? or is there some fundamental problems with our political leaders and how they're dealing with each other. >> this is totally about personal ability, christine. >>, no, obviously, look. >> and charm and good looks. everybodwants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. that's what's going on here. the choices have not changed. the solutions to these challenges are still pretty much the same kinds of options that we faced earlier in the decade for years to come. there are certain things you you have to do with benefits, certain things you have to do with eligibility. you can change formulas, but by and large you've got the choices that have remained for some time. they've gotten bigger, the problems have gotten and the ability to get out of the hole has gotten more steep. it's a matter of people not wanting in congress in this instance and with the president,

to not want to make the tough choices that are getting tougher by the day. in order to get to the promised land, reducing the debt and reducing the deficit. >> john, it might be quite frankly that he's an iowan and iowans get things done. i got to sequester conspiracy theory for you. both republicans and democrats are using these automatic cuts as cover. they pretend to disdain them, but democrats are actually okay with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction that doesn't touch medicare, medicaid and social security. republicans are railing against slashing defense. in the deal they've got a big cuts that they have long coveted. both sides can claim it's the other side that's unreasonable and they get automatic cuts. is this oliver stone stuff or am i on to something here? >> there are people in both parties who think a sequester would be a good thing for them. there are a lot of republicans who think the president is never going to budge and point to

newly elected democrats. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren ran ads saying i will never cut medicare. chairman newsle knows you can't get the deal unless you have some call them what you will, cuts, big changes in the programs. you have people on the left saying we'll never do that they think if they have the sequester they can blame republicans, republicans are lower on the notch of public opinion. not that democrats are particularly high. the republicans are a little bit lower. there are some republicans who say this is our only leverage over the president. our only leverage is to have a calamity like this happen so he has to come to the table and cut a bargain. is that a majority of opinion in both parties? probably not. are there strong opinions? yes, there are. >> republican senator, saxby chambliss announced his retirement saying this is about frustration, a lack of leadership from the white house and the dearth of meaningful action from congress, especially on issues that are the foundation of our nation's economic health. senator chambliss broke with

grover norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. chambliss says he understands that sometimes higher taxes are appropriate. i see a country that is not adding enough jobs, struggling for economic growth. lagging in education i'm not putting saxby chambliss on a pedestal. but are too many of our political leaders beholden to the extremes of their parties to be part of the solution? >> there's no question that that's the case. i think john hit it exactly right when he talked about democrats being extremists on the point of entitlements, but republicans are also being extremists when it comes to the tax code. our tax code needs reform. if you reform it in the right way, the economy can take off. that's certainly for small businesses and corporations that have $1.7 trillion of cash sitting on the sidelines right now. could go to investment in plant and equipment and job creation

that would create taxpayers and that would bring revenue actually into the treasury if you did this right. so you know, even to those folks that are saying don't touch the tax code, i would say tax reform would increase the amount of revenue coming into washington. that's a good thing because it causes, because the economic growth is what's causing that. i think both sides need to listen to one another a little bit more carefully. talk with one another more often. i think if they did that, people like saxby would not be quite as frustrated. he's a good guy, he's somebody that wants to work with not only republicans, but also democrats. we need more of those people. >> gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me this weekend. nice to see you. up next, do cuts equal crisis? mandatory cuts are looming and they're coming to a government-funded program near you most likely if none of our current politicians will help us, maybe george washington has the answer. . if your tires need to be rotated,

you have to get that done as well. jackie, tell me why somebody should bring they're car here to the ford dealership for service instead of any one of those other places out there. they are going to take care of my car because this is where it came from. price is right no problem, they make you feel like you're a family. get a synthetic blend oil change, tire rotation and much more, $29.95 after $10.00 rebate. if you take care of your car your car will take care of you. i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one.

that company, the united states postal service®, works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com®, you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small.

sequester, it's the second mini cliff that came out of the last-minute fiscal cliff deal at the end of last year. when congress first agreed to the sequester as part of the deal to end the debt ceiling fight in 2011. it was considered to be such bad policy that it would have forced both parties to agree do a much smarter deficit reduction plan. ha ha ha. that didn't happen. they just extended the deadline from new year's to march 1. if congress does nothing, a series of across-the-board cuts takes effect. hitting the defense budget along with things like education, aviation safety, the fda, food inspections. imports. just about everything you can think of. take look at this. it would lower the point is to lower our $16 trillion national det. but even the threat of lowering the debt is slowing our growth. the commercial, the commerce department says a large cut in federal spending, primarily in defense contributed to the

economy shrinking in 2012. this week president obama urged congress to pass a short-term deal that puts off the cuts, buying time to negotiate a big long-term deficit reduction plan. but the president says any deal should include more revenue. which means ending some tax breaks and that angers some republicans. >> i don't like the sequester, i think it's taking a meat axe to our government, a meat axe to many programs and it will weaken our national defense. the americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes. >> john avalon is a cnn contributor and economist peter parise is a economist. >> i can remember being you in the final days, the days following the new year's fiscal cliff punt. do you see any signs to the end

of the congressional malpractice that brought us here? >> i wish i could say yes. i mean look, nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of hanging. in this date they kicked the hanging date to march 1st. there's still a pervasive denial. republicans are saying we hate the sequester but maybe we could take the defense cuts off the table. that denies the reality that was supposed to compel them, which was broad-based pain. everyone would have to give a little bit. this is such a dumb, self-inflicted problem. the real resolve to get something done, a grand bargain, doesn't exist. when the president talks about closing loopholes that should be consistent with tax reform. but no it's cast as a tax hike and democrats still seem in denial about the real nature of the problem, which is entitlements, that's driving long-term debt. >> so we're where we were in august of 2011. right where we were with no resolution. want you to listen to new york democrat, gerald nadaler who

articulates the fear that politicians have as the deadline looms. >> cbo said the sequester would cut economic growth by 1.25%. that would cost us almost a million jobs. at that time that we see this kind of stupidity in europe -- >> pete your are you buying into the nightmare scenario right there? >> i'm not buying in a nightmare scenario. certainly a sequester would reduce aggregate demand. however, a lot of things are hurting the economy right now and if we have a recession, it won't be because the sequester it will be because of a variety of factors. in the economy ranging from banking to health care to trade. >> did you say if we have a recession. >> i can't believe we are having this conversation, it turned my blood cold. >> look at the growth rate. in the last quarter, we contracted. the prospects for this quarter are a low rate of growth.

when you're growing at 1%, it doesn't take much to tip the economy into a recession. sequester probably isn't enough to do that. because the spending cuts won't bite soon enough. however sequester has profound consequences in the next fiscal year. this year you can postpone painting the buildings a bit and things like that. but think about readiness in the marines if this goes on a another year, there's a lot of things that you can postpone for six months. but then things get nasty. >> you sent me a quote from president george washington, i want to read it to you. this is the washington quote. in his farewell address he wrote, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue. and to revenue, there must be taxes. and he warns that racking up debt in times of peace should be avoided. this seems so simple. when did america get so far away, john avalon from its principles? >> when did math start getting

partisan? this is radical common sense from the nation's founding father. there's certain universal principle, a nation should not spend more than it takes in. excessive debt takes down empires, it takes down civil yagss. that's why this stuff matters so much. the fact that our congress is probably the greatest impediment to a full-fledged economic recovery is should be a wake-up call. >> i think you're putting too much blame on congress, i think there's shared blame up and down pennsylvania avenue. the president has been unwilling to recognize the need to cut entitlements, even a neutral paper like the "washington post"s had called him on that on the other hand, some of the spending cuts that the republicans do propose in the house of representatives are comical. reforming health care by giving grandma vouchers to negotiate with aetna is absurd. the reality side is that neither side wants to embrace the

fundamentals reforms. we're going to have price controls the way they do in europe if we're going to get health care spending under control. no matter how we decide who gets health care and how much. and no one wants to embrace that. >> the reason why is americans would have to take sacrifice. >> you same the blame isn't just all up and down pennsylvania avenue. it's all across the country because we don't elect people who don't give us stuff. >> that's the key point. we paid in but we want do get more back than we actually paid for. this is a basic compact we have violated, that your rights and responsibilities are balanced. you should get back what you pay in. until we start getting that reality check and taking real responsibility ourselves we're going to have this fundamental problem. state of the union is tuesday, i'll keep hope alive for another few days. if the president can lead and pull a nixon in china on entitlement reform. maybe that can start to change

the long-term tied. the deficit is improving. the long-term debt is the real problem. >> great to see you guys, thanks so much, have a great weekend. of all the things our government spends money on. what do you think is the most expensive? the answer wasn't the same case 50 years ago, i'll tell you, when we come back. a new belt. some nylons. and what girl wouldn't need new shoes? and with all the points i've been earning, i was able to get us a flight to our favorite climbing spot even on a holiday weekend. ♪ things are definitely looking up. [ male announcer ] with no blackout dates, you can use your citi thankyou points to travel whenever you want. visit citi.com/thankyoucards to apply. we all work remotely so this is a big deal, our first full team gathering! i wanted to call on a few people. ashley, ashley marshall... here. since we're often all on the move, ashley suggested we use fedex office to hold packages for us. great job. [ applause ] thank you. and on a protocol note, i'd like to talk to tim hill about his tendency to use all caps in emails.

[ shouting ] oh i'm sorry guys. ah sometimes the caps lock gets stuck on my keyboard. hey do you wanna get a drink later? [ male announcer ] hold packages at any fedex office location. then you're going to love this. right now they're only $14.95! wow-a grt deal just got a whole lot better. hurry. $14.95 won't last.

debt ceilings, everything we've been talking about comes down to government spending. over the last 50 years, the u.s. government has gone from one that invests in the future to one that fuels consumption. the amount of money the u.s. government spends on entitlements has risen from one-third to two-thirds of all government spending over the past 50 years. going from millions of dollars to trillions of dollars and the percentage of people receiving benefits has skyrocketed. today about half of american households receive some kind of government benefit in the form of medicare and social security. medicaid, unemployment insurance as well as other transfer payments as they call it in washington speak. a transfer payment is a term economists use to describe money

moved by the government from one taxpayer to another. the return taxpayers get on their money is falling. it's money not spent on things like rebuilding bridges, our electrical grid and other infrastructure projects, education, reform, other valuable investments that would set our economy up for future growth. we need to rethink our government and the way we spend our money. i want to bring in jonathan last, he's the author of "what to expect when no one's expecting." america's coming demographic disaster. if the trend continues and we can't afor the to spend on investment, what happens? >> in japan, the 1980s the japan was an economic colossus. but it was warned that their demographic base couldn't support their economic growth. they were right. ran into a wall and experienced what we thought was a lost decade. they're still mired into it now. >> demographics, magnifying

washington politics right now do you think? or complicating it. >> magnifying it. washington politics have been dysfunctional and broken since the beginning. the system we have is the least worst of all the other systems. what happens is we've seen the work of bill bishop. people are sorting themselves out by demographics, they're sorting people who have children tend to coagulate in places and people who don't have children tend to coagulate in other places we've seen an increase in what's called landslide counties. polarized, we're still the same people. >> let's bring in ron brown stein, editorial director at the "national journal." we've become a nation of takers or something else going on here? >> the basic challenge we have is what you phrased. 1969, one-third of federal expenditures was classified as investments in the future. one-third was payments to individuals. today, 62% is payments to individuals, 16% is investment.

one has doubled, one has fallen. and the long-term stress here is unmistakable. the number of seniors in society is projected to double over the next 30 years, by definition that's going to mean that government is going to consume a larger share of the economy historically. i think that's something that conservatives are going to have to accept. and liberals will have to accept unless you put some constraint on the entitlements programs, there won't be money left for any of the other things you want to do, the investments in the future and no society can survive if it is tilting its resources so much toward the current generation and stinting future generations. we're paying the old people and starving the young people. the young people have to have investments in their generation because they need to make money so they can continue the cycle. >> this issed progress with

having a subreplacement birth rate. the problem is that once you're not growing your population base, you wind up in a zero sum gain. this is where the generational warfare comes into account. look at japan, last week the finance minister said it was time for japanese old people to hurry up and die, that's what it's looking like. >> will the millennial generation pay for the baby boom? then ancswer overwhelmingly is yes. young people are showing a surprising agree of willingness to fund a decent retirement for older generations. you're seeing more of older americans, older white americans moving toward a skeptical view of government and government spending and whether they are willing to make the investments, as you correctly point out, if you don't move more of these young people, heavily nonwhite

generation. half of americans under 18 will be nonwhite within this decade if we don't succeed in moving more of them into the middle class there won't be anyone to fund medicare and medicaid for the aging baby boomers which are currently becoming very skeptical of investment in the younger generation. >> in russia what they're doing to incentivize birth and talk about imdepression reform and whether immigration reform could be a key to the demographic issues. bottom line, americans aren't having enough babies and that's wreaking havoc on the country's finances, we'll be back this three minutes. new sprint direct connect. so i can get three times the coverage. [ manager 2 ] it's like working in a giant sandbox. with all these huge toys. and with the fastest push-to-talk... i can keep track of them all. [ male announcer ] upgrade to the new "done" with access to the fastest push-to-talk and three times the coverage. now when you buy one kyocera duraxt rugged phone for $69.99, you'll get four free. other offers available. visit a sprint store, or call 855-878-4biz.

otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ all right that's a fifth-floor don't sprobleok..ar away. not in my house! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! no no no! not today! ha ha ha! ha ha ha! jimmy how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? happier than dikembe mutumbo blocking a shot. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally. well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work.

good afternoon. chase sapphire. (push button tone) this is stacy from springfield. oh whoa. hello? yes. i didn't realize i'd be talking to an actual person. you don't need to press "0," i'm here. reach a person, not a prompt whenever you call chase sapphire. why should saturday night have all the fun? get two times the points on dining in restaurants, with chase sapphire preferred. america has a baby problem and it's getting bigger on average american women need to have 2.1 children in order for the overall population to stay stable. the numb of children per woman started falling in the 1800s, it spiked up after world war ii, the so-called baby boom, but it's been going down since then. america's population is getting

older. washington's priorities are changing to match america's demographics. more money spent on health care and reduced focus on investing for the future. let's continue our conversation. jonathan last the author of "what to expect when no one's expecting." a hell of a book title and ron is a cnn analyst. you know i like kids, you like kids, together around this table i think we do have population replacement. why aren't most people having more kids? >> this is the big question, it's global now, there's a global phenomenon. 97% of the world's population lives in a knt where the population is falling. there's ideal fertility, a measure that demographicers would use has been constant at 2.5 and the fact that our achieved fertility and ideal fertility is we've got cultural

and economic roadblocks that pop up. >> college is a great example. college costs have increased by 1,000 percent since 1965 in real dollars. it delays family formation, if you don't get out of college, it backs your whole life up. if maybe your starting your family at 30, you're not able to achieve the family size you want. >> we doubled the median income between 1947 and 1973. since 1937 it has been largely stagnant for many workers you know. >> that's a great point. >> but it's stagnant with two incomes to try to grow your limit. >> two people have to work. >> '47 to '73, it grew steadily. it was easier for people to feel they had the resources and we're seeing a widening separation, talk about college, if your parents graduated from college you are today five times more likely to graduate than if your parents were not. so you know, the way in which

our ladders of opportunity reinforce rather than tear down social stratification it all does fit in. there's a cultural thing going on. as societies get more money and they can raise their standard of living, they want fewer children. is that universal? >> yes. and one thing you see children become a marker of social failure. you go up the socioeconomic scale. >> i call them my cost centers, no the a failure. >> the people at the highest end have, fewest children and to a large extent, maybe they're doing better because they're not spending the other 1.1 million it takes to raise a kid in middle america. >> you look at puten in russia, aren't they incentivizing people to have kids? >> we do give people tax breaks for kids. should we be doing that? there there's a lot of research. conservative and liberal and the research suggests that both

policies are effective at best in the margins. about .5% increase for every 25% increase in spending. >> there's a significant racial and cultural dimension to this. a majority of newborns for the first time were nonwhite. 47% of americans under 18 today are nonwhite in this decade we will have majority, minority in the under 18 population and in the k-12 population at a time when our older population is prepond rantly white and finding a way to reconcile the two generations is a structural political challenge we face in the decades ahead. >> there's a common conventional wisdom that immigrants have more kids than native-born americans and the future is going to be more immigration, they're going to have more kids, paying into social security, but it's not that simple, is it? >> no, immigrants come here having more kids, but they reagrees to the mean at a fast rate. if you look at the fertility

decline, the slope of the curve for newly arrived immigrants, it's much faster than it is for native fertility declines and there's a supply aspect to immigration. fertility rates are falling within central and south america. within 20 years, all of those countries will be below the replacement rate as well. >> can i ask you about china? this is a country for years tried to limit its population. now, i mean in the sort of new world what does it mean for china? >> they're going to have about 300 million people over the age of 65 and no way to support them. demographicer call as slow-rolling humanitarian disaster. traditionally we think of china as a strategic competitor and military. i think of the challenge china presents is very different. we should be wary about managing the decline and sudden internal combustion. >> we're doing debt ceiling,

sequester and drying to get a budget and we have a washington that's focused on the gray, not necessarily on the young generation that needs investment. >> part of what makes it so challenging is the two coalitions overlapping. older white votes, three-fifths of whites over 45 voted for romney. the heart of the democratic coalition is younger, nonwhite voters. the 19% overlapping that was part of the millennial generation. the big story that bill bishop wrote about. very different, the constituency 80% of so the challenge is finding a way to kind of reconcile the interests of these very different coalitions around what i think is correct. that there is a common interest here. that ultimately that unless we do a better job of getting more of these young people into the middle class, there is no one to create the tax base to kind of support what is a growing senior

population. our politics doesn't allow for that expression now of the common interest. fighting between tax cuts and spending cuts. in the long run ultimately we're all in this together. >> ron brownstein and jonathan last, thanks. coming up stocks within striking distance of an all-time high and you're still deciding whether or not to jump in. should you buy stocks in or will this be the first bubble that could burst. find out next.

stocks are on the tear and the individual investor may finally be convinced. after yanking 150 billion dollars, out of stocks last year. cash has come pouring back into u.s. equities. remember the old saying from mom, if your friends are going

to do it, are you going to do it, too, suddenly individuals are racing after their friends to get into the stock market. what would mom say? ♪ tonight i'm going to party like it's 1999 ♪ >> prince had it right, 1999 was quite a party for the stock market. but a year later, it crashed. wiping out trillions in wealth. recalling this warning from the maestro. >> how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly influenced. >> it looks so obvious after it pops. is it happening again? four years into the bull market, record cash flowed into the stock market in january. it's a running of the bulls. either that or investors are late to the party. >> getting in now goes against the legendary advice from warren buffett, when they all zig, you should zag. >> there's more greed here than fear. >> in my view, it's a correction

waiting to happen. >> real or not, the s&p 500 has doubled since the lows in 2009. companies are flush. profits are growing. and there's this guy. >> if the fed wasn't doing quantitative easing, the markets would easily be 20 po 30% lower than where they are today. >> with apologies to the little rascals, it's baby ben throwing money into the economy, $85 billion a month with no ent in sight. does that mean you should jump in? >> you always have to step back. why are we investing in stocks or investing in bonds? it has to fit your own personal situation. and until we do that, i don't think anybody should be investing in anything. >> will stocks keep going higher. if i knew that, i'd be on a caribbean island. the better question -- do you have a plan? >> if you have a financial goal of buying a house or starting a business, this is not the time to use the stock market as a gamble. >> this is the perfect time to surrender to a financial plan. you've got the fundamentals and

you've got uncle ben pumping millions into the system. >> the last stages of a bull run historically serve up the best returns. but how do you know you're in the final stages and when it's going to be over? steven leeb is chairman and financial officer of leeb capital imaginement. last week insiders were nine times more likely to sell the shares of their companies than to buy new ones. new shares. that's the highest level of insider selling since march 2012. is that a flashing sell signal? or is that perfectly natural because you've seen a big run-up. if you're smart you say i'm going to take a little money off the table. >> i think it's natural. if you look at march 2012 to where we are right now, we're higher. we may have gone down a little bit oar march 2012. but we're still higher. i mean and the thing is, you do see a lot of skepticism out there for good reasons. >> well what's going on in the government.

for instance -- >> democrats and republicans, this and that. but basically, i mean if you look at the history of markets, okay, you really don't get serious corrections anything much more than 10 or 15%. unless you have a real spike in something. unless there's something that drives it. even in 2011 and 2010 and 2011. you had big upticks in oil prices. 3450edly they came from very low levels. but you still had oil prices going up 80, 90%, year over year and if you look at the history of our markets, since the early 1970s. you really don't have major, major market corrections unless oil prices spike. >> so it's the temperature of the market right now. but according to history unless you see oil prices go up a lot, like in 2012, this is an amazing statistic to me, 2012, no growth

in the vemd world, oil prices on average hit record levels, if you take the average, average for the entire year. but it was a very, very gradual increase. now it's picking up steam. i'll give you a number. an investor is a number. unless you see oil over 150, i'm talking about brent oil. and if you saw wti, the oil in this country around 135, 140. i think the market is still good. >> it's a market of stocks, not a stock market. i think that really is true as well. there will be some rotation between sectors as people look for the next leg up. where are the good values? >> i think you can find good values in a lot of places you know one thing that people don't realize, if you put your money in the bank today. what are you getting, 1% on short-term? >> if you're lucky. >> if you buy wells fargo, you had warren buffett on there. if you buy wells fargo, which is

the biggest mortgage lender in the country, in the world, you're getting a stock that's going to pay you nearly 3%. >> the dividend. just for owning the stock the company is going to give you money back. >> and continue to raise their dividend unless something really terrible happens in the economy. but something terrible did happen in the economy and wells fargo managed to strengthen their position. alan greenspan was on. you quieted him irrational exuberance, well-known quote. when he made that quote, i'm guessing stocks were trading, tech stocks on average were maybe 35 times earnings. today the best tech stock around, maybe google. i mean it's certainly a good one. and they dominate mobile, they dominate searches. driverless car, you name it. they're running on all cylinders, no pun intended. they're trading at about 16 times forward earnings. half the p.e. when former fed

chairman greenspan, i want to repress his name, i do. because -- >> you just called him the maestro. when he said irrational exuberance. google with a p.e. of today would have been a cheap stock in that kind of market. now it's about the most expensive tech stock out there and it's not expensive, it really isn't. >> thank you, steven. taking a break from facebook. a new study says americans are getting tired of the social network. what that means for the stock, next.

i'm serious, we compare our direct rates side by side to find you a great deal, even if it's not with us. [ ding ] oh, that's helpful! well, our company does that, too. actually, we invented that. it's like a sauna in here. helping you save, even if it's not with us -- now, that's progressive! call or click today. no mas pantalones!

if the stock market were a popularity contest, there would be some clear winners. apple, google, coke cola, mcdonald's and facebook to name a few. but that's not how things are supposed to work. stocks are a bet on the future profitability of a company, not its popularity. but for a while there, facebook's prospects looked pretty good. in the last month, the facebook

like parade petered out. the company reported better than expected profits and sales at the end of january. but it also reported higher expenses and said it would be spending a lot more money in the next year to hire more people and build more features. facebook is a young company and needs to keep finding ways to make money off of you. trouble is, there seems to be a little facebook fatigue settling in. cnn's alison kosik has the story. >> i considered i need to take a break in this. >> reporter: she's talking not about tv nor online shopping. but about facebook. and she's not alone. according to the pew research center, more than 60% of facebook users have decided to take a break from the social network. sometimes for weeks at a time. and during the super bowl, americans seemed to turn more to twitter, blowing it up with tweetds about the commercials, the blackouts, the harbaughs.

so is facebook fatigue setting in? not according to a group of college students we spoke to. >> i think it's the standard. >> i find it easier to coordinate events. >> i'm really addicted. sometimes i wake up in the middle of the night with my phone plastered to my face because i go to sleep with it on it. >> reporter: facebook debuted in may at $38 a share, tumbled almost immediately, and hasn't fully recovered. >> i think that it caught investors by surprise to think that facebook didn't have a clear path when they went public. not just in terms of the advertising, but also on the payment side, virtual goods and so forth. >> reporter: mark zuckerberg says recent numbers have been better than expected and is confident about expanding facebook's audience. but one of the biggest

challenges has been how to make money off its mobile users. last month, the number of people checking facebook on mobile devices topped the number checking the site on the web. but mobile ads are cheaper and fewer people click on them. facebook rolled out new features like facebook gifts. but zuckerberg wants to temper expectations for the new additions. >> it's important to be able to evolve the experience from something where they're trying to push and create demand to one where they're trying to satisfy demand for their existing user base. >> reporter: revenue concerns aside, facebook still has a lot going for it. it's unique. it's ubiquitous. and it's only nine years old. alison kosik, cnn, new york. >> for the first time, facebook reported that more of its users visited the site on their mobile devices. mark zuckerberg knows his company is becoming more of a

mobile company. the silicon valley neighbor is growing at a furious pace, linked. in state of the union this tuesday. the more things change, the more they stay the same. >> much remains for us to master. in some areas, the jobless rate is still three or four times the national average. >> we look at the state of your union, next. come on, nowadays lots of people go by themselves.

no they don't. hey son. have fun tonight. ♪ ♪ back against the wall ♪ ain't nothin to me ♪ ain't nothin to me [ crowd murmurs ] hey! ♪ [ howls ] ♪

bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

president obama will address congress and the nation on tuesday night, the first state of the union of his second term. cue the applause. [ applause ] he won't be able to please everyone in washington, of course. but this speech isn't for them, it's for you. what presidents try to do is show the state of your union through the state of your job. >> help for small business means jobs for americans. persistent unemployment and underemployment. >> how does this president do? he stops the slide, but jobs are slow to come back. if you have a job, you're working harder, your productivity is up, and output has risen, but what's not rising, your paycheck. wages are stagnant. in fact, you're probably making less